World Series Of Blackjack

[Brandon Brooks]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 03:06 PM\'] [quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 12:22 PM\'] I'm gonna disagree.  The dealer might exhibit the smallest tell based on looking at the hole card.
 [/quote]
But why? The dealer has no money stake in the game, so all she cares about when she's checking that card is whether it gives her blackjack or not, so she can properly execute her job duties. It's not like she's gonna get excited inside over seeing a 19 or a 20, because her job doesn't change whether she has a made hand or she has a 12. She has no reason to react. At all. [/quote]
 Yeah, s/he does, and s/he does have a financial stake.  When the patrons are winning, they are more willing to give him/her nice fat tips (I do the same).  When they are losing, they leave.

Brandon Brooks

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 03:48 PM\'] Yeah, s/he does, and s/he does have a financial stake.  When the patrons are winning, they are more willing to give him/her nice fat tips (I do the same).  When they are losing, they leave.
 [/quote]
 Which has absolutely zip to do with a televised tournament where the players are all using funny money. I'm more inclined to accept DrBear's hypothesis.

[MikeK]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 03:06 PM\'] [quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 12:22 PM\'] I'm gonna disagree.  The dealer might exhibit the smallest tell based on looking at the hole card.
 [/quote]
But why? The dealer has no money stake in the game, so all she cares about when she's checking that card is whether it gives her blackjack or not, so she can properly execute her job duties. It's not like she's gonna get excited inside over seeing a 19 or a 20, because her job doesn't change whether she has a made hand or she has a 12. She has no reason to react. At all. [/quote]
 Is the dealer human?  If so, she'll have a natural tendency to make minor tells which experienced card players pick up in a heartbeat.  It can be with how she handles the card after seeing the hole card (similar to what DrBear said), inflections in her voice, or the dealer's body language.  You may think it's a pile of horse feces.  As a person who sounds like he's seen a few of these poker shows, you should know that these tells, which 98% of the viewing public can't see, can possibly tell the player what the unknown card is.  Just because said player got one of 3 tells right doesn't mean it's bad card playing.

Then again, the visually impaired player won, so maybe Chris is right about how useful visual tells in poker really are. :-P

[whampyl03]

Didn't like it.

Matt Vasgersian, the lack of excitement, and those annoying in game wrap-arounds with that lady did me in.  That, and the show was just plain boring.  Although it was sort-of fun to strategize with the player's hands, the fact that the show would be nearly silent without that color commentator and Vasgersian drove home the boredom factor for me.

I'll will give it another shot next week and try again to get into it, though.

[weaklink75]

I sort of liked it...The graphics were done perfectly I think, all the information needed in one line. Yes, it was quiet, maybe a little too quiet, maybe if it was in a theater in the casino instead of on the floor it would be better. The commentary was useful (the one thing I do want to know is what size shoe they use--It looked to me like it was a six deck one). Maybe the action will go faster and earlier if a person gets a big early lead or in the Wild Card and Championship Games (where there's no reason to play conservative, since there's no incentive for coming in 2nd). I'll continue to watch it.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 04:54 PM\'] As a person who sounds like he's seen a few of these poker shows, you should know that these tells, which 98% of the viewing public can't see, can possibly tell the player what the unknown card is. [/quote]
 But in a poker game, those tells exist because the players with the concealed cards have a vested interest in what that down card is. The dealer in a blackjack game, especially one such as this where they are paid the same regardless of player performance (i.e. tips are a non-issue) does not. The dealer is no more excited to see a 20 than they are to see a 16. If they are, they're a crappy dealer. And somehow I don't think the Mohegan Sun is gonna sent out their crappiest dealer to represent them on national television.

I can see there being a tell if they had to double-check a card to see if it was an ace or not. That makes sense to me, because that is not a tell that comes from caring what the hand is, like the player kept implying when he would predict (usually incorrectly) if she had a pat hand or not.

Just because said player got one of 3 tells right doesn't mean it's bad card playing.

Except he was looking for tells that didn't have a reason to exist in that scenario.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'weaklink75\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 06:37 PM\'] Yes, it was quiet, maybe a little too quiet, maybe if it was in a theater in the casino instead of on the floor it would be better.
 [/quote]
 It WAS in a theater instead of on the casino floor. That's the only way you make blackjack a spectator sport. What they should have done was encourage crowd reactions.

(the one thing I do want to know is what size shoe they use--It looked to me like it was a six deck one).

At the tournament level, it's pretty likely it was a six-deck shoe. Which raises an interesting point: at some point in 30 hands with six players (dealer included), you're gonna have to reshuffle that shoe. And if those guys aren't at least running a basic count (to keep track of aces and ten-cards), they have no business being there. I have to wonder where they are asked to place the indicator (the cut card that indicates that the hand will be finished from those cards, and then a fresh six decks shuffled and loaded in), and about where in the 30 hands it comes up.

[Timsterino]

[quote name=\'goongas\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 02:22 PM\'] I was surprised how bored I was watching it.  I thought it would be more interesting. [/quote]
 That about sums up my feeling of it. I was bored and turned it off half way through.

It was not my cup of tea.

Tim :-)

[ezbidder]

Don't I feel silly.  I keep recording the episodes assuming they'll be new ones.  Has there only been one episode so far?  You mean they showed it back to back on the first night repeated?  Now the second night the same episode?  

Is this a once a week show or what?

[CaseyAbell]

It's once a week. GSN is splattering the reruns all over the schedule this week. But there will only be one rerun next week, when things go back to normal (plus the usual left coast replay of the prime time schedule, of course).

Oops, should have said two reruns. 11:00 pm Eastern Tuesday and 2:00 pm Eastern Saturday.

Also, maybe I should clarify what I said about the show being too quiet. I'm not a fan of, say, Daniel Negreanu doing a goofball jack-in-the-box routine every time his lady friend wins a hand (viewers of the Travel Channel's all-female poker special will know what I'm talking about). But a little applause and cheering wouldn't hurt.

[CarShark]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Mar 16 2004, 12:29 PM\'] So I'm surprised to see that nobody's posted about the blackjack show yet. Are people really still crying in their O'Douls over all of this?

Let me go into this by saying that I HATE Matt Vasgersian. HATE HATE HATE. He annoyed the hell out of me on Sports Geniuses, he offended me when he took over the XFL coverage after then then-WWF canned Jerry Lawler, he irritates me doing the 989 Sports spots for Sony, and I held my breath and hoped and prayed he would have nothing to do with NBC's coverage of Arena Football. To that extent at least, so far, so good.

I was also pretty certain, if you'll recall my past posts on the subject, that blackjack would not work as a TV product, not the way poker does. Not even the way Magic: The Gathering does. (And it doesn't.)

So I'm surprised to stand before you today and say that the only thing keeping me from becoming a big fan of the WSOB is that no-talent-ass-clown Vasgersian.
The tournament format is more interesting than I thought it would be, does in fact have some strategy to it, and fits neatly in an hour show (pretty much...they do skip a few hands here and there, but not more than 10, I don't think...I didn't count) In addition, whoever designed the bottom-of-the-screen FoxBox did a great job - you can pick up the progress of the hand with but a quick glance.

In fact, most of the things that annoyed me about the show could be traced back to Matt. The chief example is his making a big deal out of that guy on the end trying to "read the dealer" to see if she had a "made hand". Here's a hint: THERE'S NOTHING TO READ. SHE IS BEING PAID TO DEAL THE GAME, AND COULD CARE LESS IF YOU WIN OR LOSE. Then, of course, half the time he announced that she DID have a made hand, she didn't. But Matt still thought he was a brilliant strategist. Cowcookies. Now, if he was just making an excuse to stare deep into her eyes, I could get behind that, she was hawt.

So, will I watch again? I'm not sure. I hate Vasgergian that much. But that's not to say I won't recommend the program to the poker enthusiasts here...I'm actually kinda jazzed to fire up Bicycle Casino and play in a tournament on that now. [/quote]
 Mr. Lemon, I think that you are unfairly judging Matt Vasgersian when you say that he made a big deal about Michael Konik and his reading the dealer and "made hands." The one who was making the big deal about it was not Vasgersian, who as the color-commentator/host didn't even know about either at the start of the show (nor did he pretend that he did), but rather Max Rubin, the analyst, the one who actually knows the game. In fact, he noted it several times throughout the course of the show while Vasgersian yielded most of the chatter to him.

I have watched the show three times and was confused and surprised to see what you had written, for it seemed like it was completely clouded by your bias against Mr. Vasgersian to the point of being entirely incorrect. I sincerely hope that you decide to watch it again, with more impartiality.

I liked the commentary of Vasgersian and Rubin, as they did make several humorous remarks without overshadowing the gameplay or each other. My favorite comment came from when they were double-teaming Konik after losing a hand with 17 saying, "I had her for 18 or 19." Rubin annoyedly muttered, "Then you should have hit the hand", and Vasgersian added, "Yeah. Save it, Karnak!" Michael "Karnak" Konik, huh? I can't until the next show.

[gameshowguy2000]

I'm starting to like it. Just saw a little bit of it today, and so far, I find it interesting.

[GS Warehouse]

[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Mar 17 2004, 06:18 PM\'] I'm starting to like it. Just saw a little bit of it today, and so far, I find it interesting. [/quote]
 IIRC, we didn't want to like Cram at first, but it grew on us even for reasons that don't involve Icey.  WSoBj may also be an acquired taste, but it's something I might watch again.  Then again, after two years in Corporate America, I can get used to almost anything (almost, mind you).

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'STYDfan\' date=\'Mar 17 2004, 03:25 PM\'] I have watched the show three times and was confused and surprised to see what you had written, for it seemed like it was completely clouded by your bias against Mr. Vasgersian to the point of being entirely incorrect. [/quote]
 Absolutely. Doesn't make me "incorrect" in disliking the show, though. In fact, go back and read what I wrote. I said, essentially, that I would have liked the show if that jackass Vasgersian weren't on it. Even conceding the point about reading the dealer, the guy comes off to me as a smug twit, kinda like Bob Costas, who I respect immensely in every other field of endeavor EXCEPT when he is broadcasting baseball.

I sincerely hope that you decide to watch it again, with more impartiality

I would be willing to do that. I would also hope that any opinion pieces I happen to write following same are taken as just that, my opinion, and not dismissed as "incorrect". You wanna disagree, and provide reasons to back it up, please do, but I stopped being red-penned by teachers years ago.

[GSWitch]

It was interesting to see a blind woman going @ it.  The only time there were ever blind contestants happened on Jeopardy! & the Dick Clark versions of Pyramid.